Ozan Jaquette
UCLAKarina Salazar
University of Arizonaozanj.github.io/student_list_hsls/slides/student_list.html
A two-sided matching problem in which market allocates students to colleges (Hoxby, 1997; Hoxby, 2009)
Matchmaking
“Student list” products are a matchmaking intermediary that connects colleges to prospects
Policy concerns about student list products
Research questions
Research questions
Prospects
Leads
Inquiries
Enrollment funnel: prospects >> leads >> inquires >> applicants >> admits >> enrolled
Sources of student list data
What information does a list contain (College Board template)
Buying lists: “search filters” control which prospects included in purchase
Selection devices allocate individuals to categories based on input factors (Hirschman and Bosk, 2020)
Standardized selection devices and racial inequality
Standardized college entrance exams and AP exams as racialized inputs
P1: The condition of taking standardized assessments is associated with racial disparities in who is included versus excluded in student list products.
P2: As test score threshold increases, proportion of underrepresented minority students included in student lists declines relative to proportion who are excluded.
P3. As purchases filter on more affluent zip codes, the proportion of underrepresented minority students included in student lists declines relative to proportion excluded.
P4. Filtering on smaller geographic localities is associated with greater racial disparities in included vs. excluded than filtering on larger geographic localities.
Filtering on multiple racialized inputs has compounding effect on racial inequality
High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS09)
Student List Project
RQ1. What is relationship between search filters and racial composition of included vs excluded students?
RQ2. How do public universities use racialized search filters in concert with other search filters when purchasing student lists?
RQ3. What is observed racial composition of student list purchases that utilize racialized search filters in concert with other search filters?
| Research | MA/doctoral | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Filters | Count | Percent | Filters | Count | Percent |
| HS grad class, GPA, SAT, PSAT, Rank, State, Race | 39 | 10% | HS grad class, GPA, SAT, Zip code | 206 | 45% |
| HS grad class, PSAT, State | 27 | 7% | HS grad class, GPA, PSAT, Zip code | 145 | 32% |
| HS grad class, GPA, PSAT, State, Race | 20 | 5% | HS grad class, SAT, State | 31 | 7% |
| HS grad class, PSAT, State, Low SES | 20 | 5% | HS grad class, GPA, SAT, PSAT, Zip code | 28 | 6% |
| HS grad class, GPA, PSAT, State | 17 | 5% | HS grad class, GPA, SAT, State | 7 | 2% |
| HS grad class, GPA, SAT, State | 16 | 4% | HS grad class, SAT, Geomarket | 6 | 1% |
| HS grad class, GPA, AP score, Geomarket | 15 | 4% | HS grad class, GPA, SAT, County | 5 | 1% |
| HS grad class, GPA, SAT, PSAT, State, Segment, Gender | 13 | 3% | HS grad class, GPA, SAT, PSAT, County | 4 | 1% |
| HS grad class, PSAT, Geomarket | 12 | 3% | HS grad class, GPA, PSAT, State | 2 | 0% |
| HS grad class, SAT, State, Low SES, College size | 11 | 3% | HS grad class, SAT, Geomarket, College type | 2 | 0% |
| Academic | Geographic | Demographic | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All domestic | GPA | PSAT | SAT | HS rank | AP score | Zip code | State | Geomarket | Segment | CBSA | Race | Gender | ||||
| Total | 3,547,620 | 1,101,266 | 1,812,447 | 971,237 | 146,660 | 75,479 | 165,924 | 1,173,678 | 1,056,951 | 186,519 | 146,313 | 279,626 | 39,546 | |||
| Location | ||||||||||||||||
| % In-state | 38 | 62 | 30 | 54 | 83 | 42 | 98 | 48 | 17 | 15 | 4 | 59 | 6 | |||
| % Out-of-state | 62 | 38 | 70 | 46 | 17 | 58 | 2 | 52 | 83 | 85 | 96 | 41 | 94 | |||
| Race/ethnicity | ||||||||||||||||
| % White | 48 | 45 | 50 | 47 | 51 | 17 | 43 | 42 | 57 | 51 | 53 | 25 | 47 | |||
| % Asian | 16 | 15 | 17 | 15 | 10 | 7 | 13 | 18 | 13 | 27 | 28 | 5 | 38 | |||
| % Black | 5 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 17 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 11 | 1 | |||
| % Latinx | 21 | 24 | 19 | 22 | 23 | 46 | 27 | 24 | 16 | 11 | 8 | 46 | 6 | |||
| % AI/AN | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||
| % NH/PI | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| % Multiracial | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 5 | |||
| % Other | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| % No response | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | |||
| % Missing | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Gender | ||||||||||||||||
| % Male | 34 | 19 | 37 | 18 | 0 | 3 | 46 | 24 | 48 | 6 | 0 | 11 | 0 | |||
| % Female | 36 | 23 | 40 | 20 | 1 | 15 | 54 | 27 | 52 | 9 | 0 | 12 | 33 | |||
| % Other | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| % Missing | 30 | 58 | 22 | 63 | 99 | 82 | 0 | 49 | 0 | 85 | 1 | 77 | 67 | |||
| Household income | ||||||||||||||||
| Median income | $107K | $105K | $108K | $105K | $99K | $90K | $97K | $105K | $107K | $130K | $135K | $94K | $127K | |||
| Locale | ||||||||||||||||
| % City | 27 | 27 | 27 | 26 | 26 | 31 | 31 | 30 | 23 | 24 | 22 | 29 | 26 | |||
| % Suburban | 44 | 47 | 44 | 48 | 53 | 40 | 42 | 42 | 46 | 54 | 57 | 47 | 49 | |||
| % Rural - Fringe | 22 | 20 | 22 | 20 | 15 | 23 | 19 | 22 | 23 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 23 | |||
| % Rural - Distant | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 2 | |||
| % Rural - Remote | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| % Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 2011 D+ Cluster | SAT Math | SAT CR | Going Out of State | Percent NonWhite | Need Financial Aid | Med Income |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 51 | 546.00 | 533.00 | 32% | 30% | 57% | $95,432 |
| 52 | 480.00 | 470.00 | 30% | 58% | 71% | $63,578 |
| 53 | 561.00 | 544.00 | 32% | 50% | 55% | $92,581 |
| 54 | 458.00 | 443.00 | 25% | 83% | 76% | $38,977 |
| 55 | 566.00 | 565.00 | 52% | 24% | 63% | $71,576 |
| 56 | 420.00 | 411.00 | 29% | 93% | 66% | $35,308 |
| 57 | 541.00 | 519.00 | 52% | 47% | 43% | $67,394 |
| 58 | 533.00 | 489.00 | 28% | 87% | 69% | $68,213 |
| 59 | 561.00 | 562.00 | 52% | 24% | 74% | $54,750 |
| 60 | 589.00 | 590.00 | 63% | 37% | 36% | $104,174 |
| 61 | 585.00 | 567.00 | 51% | 30% | 40% | $123,858 |
| 62 | 596.00 | 595.00 | 67% | 24% | 72% | $59,824 |
| 63 | 548.00 | 541.00 | 39% | 23% | 65% | $69,347 |
| 64 | 466.00 | 466.00 | 48% | 34% | 29% | $49,829 |
| 65 | 440.00 | 433.00 | 23% | 93% | 78% | $45,081 |
| 66 | 499.00 | 492.00 | 20% | 12% | 76% | $50,453 |
| 67 | 519.00 | 501.00 | 27% | 53% | 59% | $60,960 |
| 68 | 552.00 | 558.00 | 52% | 35% | 65% | $57,902 |
| 69 | 534.00 | 521.00 | 37% | 19% | 65% | $88,100 |
| 70 | 613.00 | 598.00 | 65% | 29% | 61% | $86,381 |
| 71 | 405.00 | 408.00 | 39% | 97% | 68% | $42,661 |
| 72 | 399.00 | 397.00 | 31% | 87% | 47% | $32,708 |
| 73 | 528.00 | 514.00 | 29% | 42% | 62% | $90,849 |
| 74 | 433.00 | 435.00 | 29% | 84% | 79% | $44,065 |
| 75 | 459.00 | 457.00 | 28% | 85% | 72% | $50,421 |
| 76 | 514.00 | 509.00 | 27% | 38% | 64% | $61,332 |
| 77 | 502.00 | 492.00 | 26% | 18% | 75% | $62,372 |
| 78 | 594.00 | 578.00 | 56% | 26% | 39% | $134,400 |
| 79 | 550.00 | 551.00 | 57% | 32% | 74% | $40,909 |
| 80 | 534.00 | 527.00 | 39% | 39% | 65% | $49,877 |
| 81 | 491.00 | 483.00 | 27% | 57% | 72% | $63,030 |
| 82 | 496.00 | 491.00 | 29% | 21% | 75% | $53,465 |
| 83 | 500.00 | 490.00 | 19% | 26% | 71% | $49,335 |
| Total | 512.00 | 502.00 | 32% | 43% | 65% | $70,231 |
| 2011 D+ Cluster | SAT Math | SAT CR | Going Out of State | Percent NonWhite | Need Financial Aid | Med Income |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 51 | 462.00 | 457.00 | 14% | 33% | 68% | $40,918 |
| 52 | 489.00 | 496.00 | 81% | 99% | 77% | $64,730 |
| 53 | 471.00 | 484.00 | 28% | 38% | 62% | $60,833 |
| 54 | 376.00 | 371.00 | 33% | 96% | 38% | $38,146 |
| 55 | 489.00 | 481.00 | 39% | 46% | 44% | $71,845 |
| 56 | 536.00 | 508.00 | 73% | 43% | 49% | $63,967 |
| 57 | 434.00 | 435.00 | 29% | 82% | 79% | $48,301 |
| 58 | 592.00 | 577.00 | 51% | 27% | 32% | $104,509 |
| 59 | 499.00 | 489.00 | 19% | 18% | 74% | $47,685 |
| 60 | 523.00 | 549.00 | 23% | 30% | 33% | $70,175 |
| 61 | 485.00 | 370.00 | 33% | 89% | 9% | $61,385 |
| 62 | 474.00 | 473.00 | 34% | 92% | 67% | $55,515 |
| 63 | 440.00 | 427.00 | 28% | 86% | 72% | $49,238 |
| 64 | 606.00 | 542.00 | 37% | 89% | 57% | $81,911 |
| 65 | 515.00 | 503.00 | 28% | 43% | 65% | $72,692 |
| 66 | 498.00 | 515.00 | 37% | 37% | 73% | $60,272 |
| 67 | 526.00 | 546.00 | 48% | 41% | 69% | $71,279 |
| 68 | 541.00 | 540.00 | 41% | 26% | 62% | $79,260 |
| 69 | 390.00 | 395.00 | 36% | 92% | 74% | $43,391 |
| 70 | 595.00 | 581.00 | 56% | 33% | 48% | $105,721 |
| 71 | 400.00 | 412.00 | 57% | 98% | 80% | $43,137 |
| 72 | 528.00 | 544.00 | 35% | 25% | 64% | $70,018 |
| 73 | 451.00 | 438.00 | 24% | 89% | 76% | $48,406 |
| 74 | 654.00 | 579.00 | 76% | 80% | 46% | $59,089 |
| 75 | 514.00 | 502.00 | 31% | 20% | 71% | $72,850 |
| 76 | 600.00 | 584.00 | 72% | 50% | 28% | $90,265 |
| 77 | 595.00 | 508.00 | 64% | 75% | 39% | $39,490 |
| 78 | 473.00 | 468.00 | 48% | 43% | 22% | $56,703 |
| 79 | 594.00 | 585.00 | 61% | 26% | 71% | $65,180 |
| Total | 514.00 | 502.00 | 32% | 44% | 65% | $70,223 |
Improve this paper enough to get published
[1] R. Benjamin. Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Medford, MA: Polity, 2019. ISBN: 9781509526390 (hardback) 9781509526406 (paperback).
[2] E. Bonilla-Silva. “Rethinking racism: Toward a structural interpretation”. In: American Sociological Review 62.3 (1997), pp. 465-480. ISSN: 0003-1224. DOI: 10.2307/2657316. URL: <Go to ISI>://WOS:A1997XG45300007.
[3] College Board. Segment Analysis Service: An educationally relevant geodemographic tagging service. Tech. rep. College Board, 2011. URL: https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/mSSS/media/pdf/segment-analysis-service-overview.pdf.
[4] T. M. Cottom. Lower ed: The troubling rise of for-profit colleges in the new economy. New Press, The, 2017.
[5] R. Freedle. “Correcting the SAT's ethnic and social-class bias: A method for reestimating SAT scores”. In: Harvard Educational Review 73.1 (2003), pp. 1–43.
[6] D. Hirschman and E. A. Bosk. “Standardizing biases: Selection devices and the quantification of race”. In: Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 6.3 (2020), pp. 348-364. DOI: 10.1177/2332649219844797. URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2332649219844797.
[7] M. M. Holland. Divergent paths to college: Race, class, and inequality in high schools. Rutgers University Press, 2019. DOI: 10.36019/9780813590288.
[8] J. Howell, M. H. Hurwitz, Z. Mabel, et al. Participation in student search service is associated with higher college enrollment and completion. Tech. rep. College Board, 2021. URL: https://cbsearch.collegeboard.org/pdf/college-outreach-and-student-outcomes.pdf.
[9] C. M. Hoxby. How the changing market structure of U.S. higher education explains college tuition. Tech. rep. Working Paper 6323. National Bureau of Economic Research, 1997. URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/W6323.pdf.
[10] C. M. Hoxby. “The changing selectivity of American colleges”. In: Journal of Economic Perspectives 23.4 (2009), pp. 95-118. ISSN: 0895-3309. URL: <Go to ISI>://000272677100005.
[11] S. R. Khan. Privilege: The making of an adolescent elite at St. Paul's School. Princeton studies in cultural sociology. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2011, p. 232. ISBN: 9780691145280 (alk. paper) 0691145288 (alk. paper) 9780691156231 (pbk.) 0691156239 (pbk.).
[12] A. Leyshon and N. Thrift. “Lists come alive: electronic systems of knowledge and the rise of credit-scoring in retail banking”. In: Economy and Society 28.3 (1999), pp. 434-466. ISSN: 0308-5147. DOI: 10.1080/03085149900000013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/03085149900000013.
[13] D. Norris. “Embedding racism: City government credit ratings and the institutionalization of race in markets”. In: Social Problems (2021). ISSN: 0037-7791. DOI: 10.1093/socpro/spab066. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spab066.
[14] C. O'Neil. Weapons of math destruction: how big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. First edition.. New York: Crown, 2016, p. x, 259 pages. ISBN: 9780553418811 (hardcover) 9780553418835 (softcover).
[15] A. Posecznick. Selling hope and college merit, markets, and recruitment in an unranked school. Ithaca ; London: Cornell University Press, 2017. ISBN: 9781501707582 9781501709821. URL: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/52616.
[16] S. F. Reardon, D. Kalogrides, and K. Shores. “The geography of racial/ethnic test score gaps”. In: American Journal of Sociology 124.4 (2019), pp. 1164-1221. DOI: 10.1086/700678. URL: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/700678.
[17] A. Rodriguez and E. Hernandez-Hamed. “Understanding unfulfilled AP potential across the participation pipeline by race and income”. In: Teachers College Record 122.9 (2020), p. 38. ISSN: 0161-4681. URL: <Go to ISI>://WOS:000595649100009.
[18] K. G. Salazar. “Recruitment Redlining by Public Research Universities in the Los Angeles and Dallas Metropolitan Areas”. In: The Journal of Higher Education (2022), pp. 1–37. DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2021.2004811. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2021.2004811.
[19] K. G. Salazar, O. Jaquette, and C. Han. “Coming Soon to a Neighborhood Near You? Off-Campus Recruiting by Public Research Universities”. In: American Educational Research Journal 58.6 (2021), pp. 1270-1314. DOI: 10.3102/00028312211001810. URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/00028312211001810.
[20] K. G. Salazar, O. Jaquette, and C. Han. Geodemographics of student list purchases: a first look. Tech. rep. Washington, DC: TICAS, 2022. URL: https://ticas.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Geodemographics-of-Student-List-Purchases_A-First-Look.pdf.
[21] M. V. Santelices and M. Wilson. “Unfair Treatment? the case of Freedle, the SAT, and the standardization approach to differential item functioning”. In: Harvard Educational Review 80.1 (2010), pp. 106–133.
[22] J. Smith, J. Howell, and M. Hurwitz. “The impact of college outreach on high schoolers’ college choices: Results from over one thousand natural experiments”. In: Education Finance and Policy 17.1 (2022), pp. 105-128. ISSN: 1557-3060. DOI: 10.1162/edfp_a_00334. URL: https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00334.
[23] M. L. Stevens. Creating a class: College admissions and the education of elites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007, p. 308. ISBN: 9780674026735 (alk. paper) 067402673X (alk. paper).
[24] M. J. N. Tiako, E. South, and V. Ray. “Medical Schools as Racialized Organizations: A Primer”. In: Annals of Internal Medicine 174.8 (2021), pp. 1143-1144. DOI:
| State | # received order summary | # no order summary | # received list | # no list | # received both | # did not receive both |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA | 9 | 23 | 13 | 19 | 9 | 23 |
| IL | 9 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 8 | 4 |
| TX | 15 | 20 | 16 | 19 | 10 | 25 |